The players are being generous helping the owners pay for contracts they offered but couldn't afford to. The owners that are doing well can more than afford to contribute. After all they are the ones who hired Bettman and went along with his schemes to grow the league.But it's great that you won't be attending any games and don't buy any NHL merchandise.Bettman and the NHL want the fans to blame the players for all this and for the customers to hate the product and I hope it works. I hope there will be major revenue decline and I think that will lead to finally getting that pariah out of our sport.You're right there must be something in the genetics that makes somebody a great hockey player that also makes him stupider and greedier than other athletes forcing Bettman to lock them (and us) out every time the CBA expires. Why should we idolize and watch those stupid, greedy @#$% or let our children watch them?That is why has hockey has lost more games due to labour disputes than all other major sports leagues combined.

Based on the rhetoric, the players want the fans to blame the owners as much as the owners want the fans to blame the players. I don't listen to the rhetoric.

I will say this much, hockey has lost more games due to labor disputes because of both the NHL and NHLPA. Remember, during the last lockout when the players were making over 70% of the total revenues, the league was justified in locking them out. Many were on the owners side then. Were the players at fault for not giving up enough back then? I feel that a deal could have been reached if both sides actually cared about the sport and the fans. Instead, greed ruled above everything else.

This year is no different from any other lockout year in the NHL. There is great distrust between the sides. Both sides want everything and then some. This isn't the fault of one side or the other in specific, but both sides. I have given up trying to tell people here this because of the bias here on these forums toward the players union. When I look back on all the strikes/lockouts of the last 20 years in the NHL though, its hard to not see that both sides are just not able to handle treating the other side with respect and negotiate in good faith. It was going on back during the players strike and all the way up until today.

This next deal will not be the end of these lockouts. You can count on one at the expiration of the next CBA, probably a players strike this time, and you will see lost games. Unlike other leagues, the NFL knows to keep the money train going. The NBA has its share of issues but they worked out a deal with minimal lost games. The NHL still hasn't learned the basics of labor harmony.

Based on the rhetoric, the players want the fans to blame the owners as much as the owners want the fans to blame the players. I don't listen to the rhetoric.

I will say this much, hockey has lost more games due to labor disputes because of both the NHL and NHLPA. Remember, during the last lockout when the players were making over 70% of the total revenues, the league was justified in locking them out. Many were on the owners side then. Were the players at fault for not giving up enough back then? I feel that a deal could have been reached if both sides actually cared about the sport and the fans. Instead, greed ruled above everything else.

This year is no different from any other lockout year in the NHL. There is great distrust between the sides. Both sides want everything and then some. This isn't the fault of one side or the other in specific, but both sides. I have given up trying to tell people here this because of the bias here on these forums toward the players union. When I look back on all the strikes/lockouts of the last 20 years in the NHL though, its hard to not see that both sides are just not able to handle treating the other side with respect and negotiate in good faith. It was going on back during the players strike and all the way up until today.

This next deal will not be the end of these lockouts. You can count on one at the expiration of the next CBA, probably a players strike this time, and you will see lost games. Unlike other leagues, the NFL knows to keep the money train going. The NBA has its share of issues but they worked out a deal with minimal lost games. The NHL still hasn't learned the basics of labor harmony.

This so exasperatingThe players are the product any business except the NHL (run by Bettman) would not want their customers hating their product. Most employees don't care what people think of the owners of their companies , in fact if they are total scum like Bettman and most of the BoG than most employees would perpetuate that hate for their employers.The players strike was resolved without losing any games which goes against you argument.One person hasn't learned the basics of labour harmony and he is running the show. You can't have harmony if one person wants to control everything

good article on the breakdown of the core economic issues and while those are the most important issues, there are some things that the owners have given the players. and while they aren't nearly as important as the big issues, i'm sure the players will be glad to have them. also, that article didn't mention the pension issues, which would be considered an owner's concession

among other things, the owners have proposed to 1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players; 2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); 3) eliminate re-entry waivers; 4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); 5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).

Some other things that the players should like:

1) Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union; 2) Establishment of a “standard of care” and “primary allegiance” obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing); 3) Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team’s home city; 4) Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense; 5) Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp; 5) Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms; 6) Ice condition improvements and standards; 7) More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones; 8) Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams; 9) increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players; 10) And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you’re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders.

The players are being generous helping the owners pay for contracts they offered but couldn't afford to

legally, the owners are the ones being generous with the make whole because all contracts signed are subject to changes to a new cba. the players and agents are fully aware that contracts could and most likely will be changed when a new cba comes along, which is why i believe suter and parise got so much signing bonus money, which is not subject to cba changes. now you could argue morally and ethically the owners are in the wrong if they don't offer to honor contracts in full which i agree they should, but legally they don't have to.

This so exasperatingThe players are the product any business except the NHL (run by Bettman) would not want their customers hating their product. Most employees don't care what people think of the owners of their companies , in fact if they are total scum like Bettman and most of the BoG than most employees would perpetuate that hate for their employers.The players strike was resolved without losing any games which goes against you argument.One person hasn't learned the basics of labour harmony and he is running the show. You can't have harmony if one person wants to control everything

Lets dispense will the bull shall we?

No employer or employee wants to see customers hating their product.

I never said the players strike resulted in lost games. Please point out where I said that. I merely stated that there has been a history of mistrust. It helps to read and understand the person's stance before trying to add a point that was never mentioned in order to make yourself look good.

I will give you this, is Bettman a problem? Absolutely. He needs to be fired. However, I also believe that the head of the NHLPA should also be fired. Only in a situation like this could the players and the league meet without Bettman and Fehr, come to a conclusion on many points, and then the heads of the league get together only to have it go south in less than 24 hours. How anyone can give a pass to Bettman or Fehr in this is just out of their freaking mind. A clean slate needs to be enacted before the next CBA expires. Keeping both of these people in power does not bode well for the health of the sport.

Based on the rhetoric, the players want the fans to blame the owners as much as the owners want the fans to blame the players. I don't listen to the rhetoric.

I will say this much, hockey has lost more games due to labor disputes because of both the NHL and NHLPA. Remember, during the last lockout when the players were making over 70% of the total revenues, the league was justified in locking them out. Many were on the owners side then. Were the players at fault for not giving up enough back then? I feel that a deal could have been reached if both sides actually cared about the sport and the fans. Instead, greed ruled above everything else.

This year is no different from any other lockout year in the NHL. There is great distrust between the sides. Both sides want everything and then some. This isn't the fault of one side or the other in specific, but both sides. I have given up trying to tell people here this because of the bias here on these forums toward the players union. When I look back on all the strikes/lockouts of the last 20 years in the NHL though, its hard to not see that both sides are just not able to handle treating the other side with respect and negotiate in good faith. It was going on back during the players strike and all the way up until today.

This next deal will not be the end of these lockouts. You can count on one at the expiration of the next CBA, probably a players strike this time, and you will see lost games. Unlike other leagues, the NFL knows to keep the money train going. The NBA has its share of issues but they worked out a deal with minimal lost games. The NHL still hasn't learned the basics of labor harmony.

the dysfunction between the pa and the league can go all the way back to alan eagleson in the 80's, whom was found to be essentially in the owners back pocket. once he was removed, the union brings in bob goodenow, who has the players go on strike in 1992 on the eve of the stanley cup finals. then a year later the league brings in bettman to push back and we have been in the era of ugly labor stoppages ever since.

in all his years of knowing Gary Bettman, Don Cherry had never seen the NHL commissioner as emotional as he was addressing the media following last week’s collective bargaining meetings between the players and owners, which seemingly gained traction and then broke off sharply.

“I’m not saying he was crying or anything, but he actually had water on the sides of his eyes, he was so mad,” Cherry told Brady and Lang on Sportsnet 590 The Fan Monday morning. “I’ve never seen him like that, and I know him personally. I think it’s going to get personal right now. I think they have to hold him back and he’s going to have to bite his lip a little bit because it’s getting personal right now.”

As for the idea of holding a secret ballot within the NHLPA to gauge whether the group is in favour holding out longer for what they want, Cherry believes it can’t hurt. There is no way a player making the league average or lower would voice his opinion otherwise, Cherry said.

“You would be nailed to the cross if you ever stood up and said, ‘Let’s accept the owners’ suggestion and contract,’ ” Cherry explained. “What’s the harm in a secret ballot? If it comes out 100 per cent reject, then at least you know where you stand.

“Guys like (Boston Bruins owner) Jeremy Jacobs -- you think he’s not licking his lips right now?” Cherry asked. “(Players) have got to realize, these teams for these billionaire owners are toys. This is not their main (source of income). If you keep pushing them up the wall, you’re going to be very sorry. They’re calling these billionaires ‘idiots’? That really kills me. You’re not going to snow these guys. These guys have been in negotiations.”

good article on the breakdown of the core economic issues and while those are the most important issues, there are some things that the owners have given the players. and while they aren't nearly as important as the big issues, i'm sure the players will be glad to have them. also, that article didn't mention the pension issues, which would be considered an owner's concession

legally, the owners are the ones being generous with the make whole because all contracts signed are subject to changes to a new cba. the players and agents are fully aware that contracts could and most likely will be changed when a new cba comes along, which is why i believe suter and parise got so much signing bonus money, which is not subject to cba changes. now you could argue morally and ethically the owners are in the wrong if they don't offer to honor contracts in full which i agree they should, but legally they don't have to.

I know what you're saying, but I'd hardly call it generous to agree to honor a portion of the contract you've decided not to pay in full, some of which were signed only months ago.

My understanding is they tried a similar move in the NBA lockout (which isn't surprising since all 4 major sports are repped by the same law firm in CBA negotiations) and it got quickly shot down. While they NBA players agreed to 50/50, they play in a league with a soft cap and luxury tax and had the owners make a large increase in revenue sharing.

All sports are different, but the NBA is a relatively close business to the NHL. And in comparison, the NHL players are getting hammered in this negotiation, in great part due to the sins of the owners.

And of the things that benefit players listed in the article:

1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players;That helps the owners just as much for teams to get under the cap. And I would hardly call that a benefit to players, other than things could have been much worse. They're having their salaries cut back and the cap further restricted. Not waiving players isn't a benefit offered to the players. It just means the owners didn't make things even worse for them.

This is the problem I have with the logic of the league side. Because of the owners ridiculous first proposal, Bettman keeps claiming all they've done is concede. Starting at an insane point and moving towards something reasonable, however, is not really a concession. It just means you've actually decided to negotiate in good faith. Fehr should have started by taking the cap off the table, or increasing player share to 70%. Then he could have "conceded" to allowing the cap be in play again. Or having the percentage come down to 60%.

At best, this one's a wash.

2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted);probably benefits owners more in that they can dump the awful deals they've made. At best, also a wash.

3) eliminate re-entry waivers; I'd say wash, but I may be missing something on how this benefits players more than owners because I don't know all the ins and outs. Teams being able to send players down without potentially losing them is a benefit.

4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); This helps the league and unlike anything the owners have proposed, actually addresses the fundamental problem in the league's economic structure. Definitely a wash.

5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).This one I don't know much about but I initially read somewhere it would probably be a very rare circumstance.

Taken in total, none of those even come close to moving from 57 to 50% in salary and giving up all the contracting rights the players will need to in order to make a deal.

Negotiations are give and take. The starting point for who determining who is conceding something is the last CBA, not the first ridiculous proposal the NHL made. Bettman keeps trying this slight of hand and it seems to be working on people.

I know what you're saying, but I'd hardly call it generous to agree to honor a portion of the contract you've decided not to pay in full, some of which were signed only months ago.

My understanding is they tried a similar move in the NBA lockout (which isn't surprising since all 4 major sports are repped by the same law firm in CBA negotiations) and it got quickly shot down. While they NBA players agreed to 50/50, they play in a league with a soft cap and luxury tax and had the owners make a large increase in revenue sharing.

All sports are different, but the NBA is a relatively close business to the NHL. And in comparison, the NHL players are getting hammered in this negotiation, in great part due to the sins of the owners.

And of the things that benefit players listed in the article:

1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players;That helps the owners just as much for teams to get under the cap. And I would hardly call that a benefit to players, other than things could have been much worse. They're having their salaries cut back and the cap further restricted. Not waiving players isn't a benefit offered to the players. It just means the owners didn't make things even worse for them.

This is the problem I have with the logic of the league side. Because of the owners ridiculous first proposal, Bettman keeps claiming all they've done is concede. Starting at an insane point and moving towards something reasonable, however, is not really a concession. It just means you've actually decided to negotiate in good faith. Fehr should have started by taking the cap off the table, or increasing player share to 70%. Then he could have "conceded" to allowing the cap be in play again. Or having the percentage come down to 60%.

At best, this one's a wash.

2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted);probably benefits owners more in that they can dump the awful deals they've made. At best, also a wash.

3) eliminate re-entry waivers; I'd say wash, but I may be missing something on how this benefits players more than owners because I don't know all the ins and outs. Teams being able to send players down without potentially losing them is a benefit.

4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); This helps the league and unlike anything the owners have proposed, actually addresses the fundamental problem in the league's economic structure. Definitely a wash.

5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).This one I don't know much about but I initially read somewhere it would probably be a very rare circumstance.

Taken in total, none of those even come close to moving from 57 to 50% in salary and giving up all the contracting rights the players will need to in order to make a deal.

Negotiations are give and take. The starting point for who determining who is conceding something is the last CBA, not the first ridiculous proposal the NHL made. Bettman keeps trying this slight of hand and it seems to be working on people.

One thing he is right about is his estimation of the intelligence of the sports fan. He would never have tried a lot of the things he did if he wasn't right.It is painfully obvious who is responsible for all the lockoutS.

One thing I think people are overlooking regarding this CBA negotiations is that while this does involve business owners and a union, this really has little to do with typical labor negotiations.

For starters, hockey is entertainment. Yes the players get paid ridiculous sums of money to play game. They don't get paid that amount because they are very good at hockey. They get paid that amount because people will pay a lot of money to watch them play.

It's why the owners need the players and the players need the owners. Sure, the owners could get rid of all the players and start over, but people won't shell out the ridiculous money they do for NHL games to watch 4th line scrubs play the game. there's already plenty of existing leagues with that level of talent, and ticket prices reflect that. That's the second point, the players are an elite and very small talent pool, and it's reflected in their salaries.

That's why these negotiations have more in common with the entertainment industry than the auto industry. Adam Sandler gets paid a boatload of money to be in movies not because he's great at acting, but because a lot of people will pay money to go see him in a movie.

Just a point I wanted to make clear because it seems to be getting lost in the noise. I don't hate the owners, but the players generate massive amounts of revenue for the owners. Both sides need each other and should have been able to come to a sensible agreement.

One thing I think people are overlooking regarding this CBA negotiations is that while this does involve business owners and a union, this really has little to do with typical labor negotiations.

For starters, hockey is entertainment. Yes the players get paid ridiculous sums of money to play game. They don't get paid that amount because they are very good at hockey. They get paid that amount because people will pay a lot of money to watch them play.

It's why the owners need the players and the players need the owners. Sure, the owners could get rid of all the players and start over, but people won't shell out the ridiculous money they do for NHL games to watch 4th line scrubs play the game. there's already plenty of existing leagues with that level of talent, and ticket prices reflect that. That's the second point, the players are an elite a very small talent pool, and it's reflected in their salaries.

That's why these negotiations have more in common with the entertainment industry than the auto industry. Adam Sandler gets paid a boatload of money to be in movies not because he's great at acting, but because a lot of people will pay money to go see him in a movie.

Just a point I wanted to make clear because it seems to be getting lost in the noise. I don't hate the owners, but the players generate massive amounts of revenue for the owners. Both sides need each other and should have been able to come to a sensible agreement.

...legally, the owners are the ones being generous with the make whole because all contracts signed are subject to changes to a new cba. the players and agents are fully aware that contracts could and most likely will be changed when a new cba comes along, which is why i believe suter and parise got so much signing bonus money, which is not subject to cba changes. now you could argue morally and ethically the owners are in the wrong if they don't offer to honor contracts in full which i agree they should, but legally they don't have to.

Not really. Like any other contract, terms can be changed through mutual agreement, and a new CBA can afford an opportunity to reach that agreement through negotiation with the players as a whole, rather than an individual player.

However, if the players do not agree, owners either have to maintain the lockout, or win the right to change those contracts in court.

After today's announcement regarding non-games and in case anyone is wondering:

The NHL and the players are trying to avoid the loss of a full season for the second time in eight years. The 2004-05 lockout, that eventually produced a salary cap for the first time in league history, was the first labor dispute to force a totally canceled season in North American professional sports.

The season was called off Feb. 16, and an agreement was reached on July 13. The lockout ended nine days later, after the deal was ratified by both sides, allowing for the following season to begin on time. That agreement reached then was in place until this year, and the current lockout began right after its expiration on Sept. 16.

Negotiations are give and take. The starting point for who determining who is conceding something is the last CBA, not the first ridiculous proposal the NHL made. Bettman keeps trying this slight of hand and it seems to be working on people.

i agree that the owners first offer was insulting.

i am just pointing out to the people who say the given the players haven't been given a "single" thing in these negotiations are not correct

The NHL announced Monday that all games have been canceled through Dec. 30.

There already have been 422 regular-season games lost through Dec. 14 because of the lockout, and the latest cuts on Day 86 of the league shutdown claimed an additional 104. The NHL previously called off the New Year's Day Winter Classic, as well as the All-Star Game.In all, the 526 lost games account for nearly 43 percent of the regular season that had been scheduled to begin Oct. 11.